EDIT: And my favorite part is the first step the Siemens machines they used for testing is to "dilute" the part of the sample it is going to use (addition of DI water, to get the blood to the desired concentration). That is hard-coded into the protocol, with a specific dilution amount, and it is done for all the official Siemens tests, as well, hah.
> Holmes described the miniLab as “the most important thing humanity has ever built”. But at best, the lab could do immunoassays using microfluidics. The tiny blood sample had to be diluted extensively (for which there are no reference standards or precedents), leading to artefacts and spurious results.
That (and other reports) sound like they diluted way more than usual.
1. The premise assumes there are not significant wastage in the current processes and those are near optimal. Any non optimal paths could potentially benefit from improvements
2. While there are some tests at that low concentrations not all tests have components at that low concentrations. Those could certainly be improved ?
3. Reuse and cross testing the same samples, or testing for multiple things at the same time etc, are all areas that could yield better outcomes than current standard.
4. Perhaps it is also possible that while primary marker for a test is not present in the sample, its presence in the blood could have left other markers that are detectable
I don't know anything about lab testing, if I can think of few approaches to solution for the low sample problem. Experts may have many other approaches so it shouldn't be surprising if there are improvements claimed ?
If I falsely claim to have invented a warp drive, I don't get credit for whatever work people do in that area in the future.
Holmes was an agent to energize the industry in the sense that she was instrument to attracting a lot of new VC investors willing to throw money and experiment with new tech like this . I doubt she personally claimed to have invented anything new, even had Theranos succeeded her claim to fame would be only building the organization that enabled such innovation and not the innovation itself.
Even though Theranos failed as firm, a lot of smart people got funding to work on interesting projects while there and potentially either developed or started developing products because of holmes being able keep them and Theranos funded. A lot of new people are getting funding, because Theranos and Holmes opened this industry to VC funding when it was not traditionally so.
To your example, if you falsely claim to invent a warp drive, raise a lot of money, hire a lot of smart people who do interesting work while working for you, eventually fail as company and those people go on to build parts of the drive partly with experience they gained in your research. This kind of research was not well funded before you, Likely without you this would have never been a VC funded industry don't you have some hand in that ?
Also, Holmes's lies sucked up a ton of funding at the time. Not just the money given to her, but the investors who said "theranos already dominates blood testing, so we'll invest in another space"
This was a disaster all around for everyone but her.
I don't know how you can say that, some of the trial evidence was heart breaking. Some of the emails, the texts back and forth between her and Sunny, what a mess, it sounded like she was totally losing her mind and stressed out to no end while being pushed and cajole by an unreasonably intense person behind the scenes. She was clearly devastated when the company collapsed, she very clearly believed in what she was doing, and now she is going to jail. That sound like beyond a disaster, it sounds like hell.
She's a human being and it is a sad situation. But this is justice.
Maybe not quite as extravagant a claim as hers, hers was def a 100 year vision, but many people are working on and having progress in a very similar area. Heck even Tyler Shultz the kid who is on the road doing a press tour about how "he took down Theranos", is working on a Theranos-esq startup.
A mL of water has ~10^22 water molecules in it. Dilute substances are usually measured in ppm (parts per million). Even 1 ppm would have 10^16 molecules. I think your orders of magnitude are way off here.
Of course, like everything it could be biased by the used methodology.
Citation needed. The whole concept has a critical flaw, as pointed out by her engineering staff and medical advisors: blood tests require a certain minimum volume of blood to work, and that's inescapable because blood components are discrete, not continuous.
For example, a drop of blood is about .05mL, or about 1/20th of a milliliter. A common testing sample size in a normal lab is 3mL, or about 60x larger what Theranos claimed they could work with. Now, suppose you're testing for some cell that's may be present in concentrations of 10 per mL, or 1 per .1mL blood volume on average. In a conventional lab, then, you'd probably have about 30 of those in the 3mL sample. In a Theranos lab, even if it worked perfectly, you're equally likely to have either 0 or 1 present in the .05mL sample. In other words, you're 50% likely to get a false negative, even if the equipment is working perfectly, based purely on the tiny sample volume.
By analogy, if you poll 100,000,000 Americans, you might get a pretty good idea of an election's result. If you poll 3, you have no idea, even if the poll is perfectly designed. Well, that's what Theranos was up against.
NB: I'm not a lab tech, and the above is my understanding of it. That's my distillation of a lot of articles I read about Theranos, such as https://theconversation.com/the-rise-and-fall-of-theranos-so... .